"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
FarmI wrote:
"Trish Brown" wrote in message

(snip)

I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...

Writing properly out of respect for Trish's incipient conniption & the
subject matter involved ;-)

This is why spelling, grammar and punctuation matter. If done correctly,
there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding of what one is trying to
say.

This is what I tell my kids (particularly when double negatives are
involved!!!!) - that good grammar simply means _everyone ELSE knows what
you've said_. It makes sense & works for us.

Look at the poster from earlier in the week (forget his name - the
bloke who was using a lot of phone-text forms - you know the one?) His
writing was barely understandable. Of course, *he* knew perfectly well
what he was trying to say, but few others did: we could only give educated
guesses at his exact meaning.

I think it's *grand* that grammar and punctuation are slowly being
reintroduced in schools! Both my parents left school at age fifteen, yet
both were excellent spellers and writers. Today's kids are every bit as
smart as that older generation and they *can* learn to spell well.

I was of the generation who wasn't formally taught grammar - but mine's fine
(as with most of the generation, in fact, luckily). Which doesn't mean I'm
not pleased particular attention is being paid these days! Really, people
who have good grammar & spelling against all odds are most likely those who
read a lot - it's really the only way it happens. Well, being surrounded by
people with good grammar also helps, I must say. But, it can be learned,
too. DH's grammar was appalling until I insisted he work harder because the
way he used to speak just made him sound like a moron, & he's not. He still
can't spell to save his life, but that's not really my concern (his
customers don't deal with anything he's written; that's mostly my privilege
;-)

I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
various common names might be in use...

That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common denominator
(as it were) in language.
Kylie
P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals bg!

0tterbot wrote:

I can feel my soapbox rising up beneath me...

Writing properly out of respect for Trish's incipient conniption & the
subject matter involved ;-)

Why thank you, Otbot, dear! ;-

snip

I was of the generation who wasn't formally taught grammar - but mine's fine
(as with most of the generation, in fact, luckily). Which doesn't mean I'm
not pleased particular attention is being paid these days! Really, people
who have good grammar & spelling against all odds are most likely those who
read a lot - it's really the only way it happens. Well, being surrounded by
people with good grammar also helps, I must say. But, it can be learned,
too. DH's grammar was appalling until I insisted he work harder because the
way he used to speak just made him sound like a moron, & he's not. He still
can't spell to save his life, but that's not really my concern (his
customers don't deal with anything he's written; that's mostly my privilege
;-)

I don't want my kids to sound particularly uppah clahss (We're not!
We're so working class, it's not funny!) I want them to be eloquent and
articulate. I also want them to have easy access to their heritage in
all forms of its literature and art.

Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that
such an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's
education system? I can never read that poem without shedding a little
tear! Having been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the
stripling's wild ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be
able to share such experiences and also to communicate them to others.

I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or
punctuate because machines will do it for them. The art forms we call
'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!

I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity when
various common names might be in use...

That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common denominator
(as it were) in language.
Kylie
P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals bg!



ROTFL! I guess it all comes down to learning about what matters to us,
doesn't it?

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

"Trish Brown" wrote in message

Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that such
an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's education
system? I can never read that poem without shedding a little tear! Having
been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the stripling's wild
ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be able to share such
experiences and also to communicate them to others.

Aaaaaah! A woman after my own heart! Not the horsewoman part, I'm an
indifferent rider, and always have been even though I love horses and sadly
on this farm they are no more. However, I do love poetry and the mere
mention of the Man from Snowy River can easily bring a tear to my eye.

My mother could recite poetry till the cows come home and I can remember
many a night when we would start to do the washing up and she would start to
recite. Lovely old poems like "Here she goes and there she goes", "King
John and the Abbot of Canterbury", "The Man from Snowy River", "The Geebung
Polo Club", "The man from Ironbark", and a personla favourite "Pardon the
son of Reprieve". You've brought back some lovely memories.

Mum's memory was phenomenal but just sometimes it would fail her, so out
would come the poetry books while she looked up the small bit that had
slipped her mind. Once reminded off she would go again, but the poetry
books would draw her back till she spotted another old favourite and then
the washing up would be forgotten and while the water slowly congealed she's
recite poetry to us. This would go on for hours until she'd suddenly notice
the time and we would be packed off to bed while she had to continue the
washing up "alone and unassisted".

She too had been a wonderful horsewoman in her youth and since doing the
family history I've since learned that according to old family
members,"there wasn't a horse that she couldn't ride". I never knew that as
a child.

I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
because machines will do it for them. The art forms we call 'the novel'
and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and thus all the
imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique and therefore
no longer have currency. How awful!

Shudder! I hope not.

"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
(snip)
Just the other day, I was quoting 'The Man From Snowy River' at my
daughter *who had never heard it recited before*. How can it be that such
an icon of the Australian heritage can be left out of today's education
system?

1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)
2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list of
available literature for schools is massive - from within that, teachers
decide.
3: i've heard it recited before & tbh, it does nothing for me. (one person's
classic is another's waste of time, it's just how it is :-) 99% of people
who know me cannot BELIEVE what my favourite book is. usually, i can't
believe theirs, either g

I can never read that poem without shedding a little
tear! Having been a horsewoman for most of my life, I can picture the
stripling's wild ride with such clarity, it hurts. I want my kids to be
able to share such experiences and also to communicate them to others.

I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
because machines will do it for them.

why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.

The art forms we call
'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!

it would be awful, but frankly i think you're being a little alarmist. the
death of novels & poems has been predicted but it is doubtful it will happen
(for one thing, if would-be video artists don't know the written word, how
would they be able to read the instructions? ;-) again tbh, i can foresee
worse than the disappearance of poems (which i generally consider to be one
of the worst forms of self-indulgence ;-) but even so, poets just keep
pumping them out! certainly the nature of performance and storytelling
changes (bards are a rare thing these days) but generally what we've always
had & presumably will continue to have are just different ways of people
telling their stories to others. the novel is nowhere near dead - there have
never been as many works of fiction (or for that matter, non-fiction)
available to so many people at once. mass literacy has brought that about &
people do value their literacy. i'd say the novel replaced bards & gossips &
"wise men" of old, video is akin to watching a play or a dance (although we
still have plays & dance performances - & again, more than ever).

lastly, not all of the "great" poets & writers really stand up these days
anyway. sometimes, things just lose currency. there's always a hardcore of
nerds who care about Brilliant Writer X, but not everything ages well.
shrug. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
came later. the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
published in modern, more discerning times.

I think it's interesting to note that Latin names for plants are easily
understood by most of us and leave no doubt as to a plant's identity
when various common names might be in use...

That's exactly right. Everyone agrees there has to be a common
denominator (as it were) in language.
Kylie
P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals bg!



ROTFL! I guess it all comes down to learning about what matters to us,
doesn't it?

gasp! i've forgotten my capitals for this one!!

thinking about gum trees, many of them have 5-10 "common" names. the place
of latin names (for the common folk) is to make clear exactly which one
you're referring to. also, lots of plants are _only_ known by their latin
names. i think people who are sensitive about others using latin names have
a generalised anxiety you can't address or change for them :-)
kylie

Ooo! What a great post! Thanks for the considered reply! :-)

0tterbot wrote:

1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)

Yep! I'm in touch with other educators in every state and most share my
paranoia. (That is, 'most of those whom I know', not 'most of those who
exist'.)

2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list of
available literature for schools is massive - from within that, teachers
decide.

Yep! My point is that classic Oz literature from Banjo Paterson, Henry
Kendall, CJ Dennis and so on ought to have a permanent place in schools
because they reflect a period of our development. I'm pretty fond of
John Marsden and other modern authors/poets too, but they don't come
from the pioneering era. Ever read Ethel Turner's books? They describe
pretty accurately what Oz kids did at the turn of the last century. We
oughtn't to pretend our history didn't happen!

3: i've heard it recited before & tbh, it does nothing for me. (one person's
classic is another's waste of time, it's just how it is :-) 99% of people
who know me cannot BELIEVE what my favourite book is. usually, i can't
believe theirs, either g

Fair enough! Not gonna argue there! What *is* your favourite book, just
out of interest? I love finding a good read through other people! :-)

snip

I have a theory that it will be far fewer years than we could imagine
before kids no longer need to learn to read or write or spell or punctuate
because machines will do it for them.

why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.

Well, I've been in the computer industry on and off for - geez! - nearly
thirty years now! I've watched 'WYSIWYG', 'multi media', 'multi tasking'
and 'the information superhighway' arrive and take hold. I've seen
storage media change from 12" floppies that held 4k of info give way to
terabytes of storage. I've learned that technology does have massive
power to change what we do and how we do it. Kids today don't need to
spell, for example. The language they use to communicate on their phones
and MSN bears little resemblance to accepted English, yet they
understand each other perfectly. It's utilitarian, isn't it? Voice
recognition has taken a long time to come along in a useful form, but
it's nearly there. I can see a day when it'll no longer be necessary to
write what you want to say. Your computer will 'hear' your voice through
supermicrophones and transmit your info to someone else who will simply
listen to it and save it in audio format. Where's the need to write
anything? Just a suspicion I have...

The art forms we call
'the novel' and 'the poem' will disappear in favour of video movies and
thus all the imagery of the great poets and writers will become antique
and therefore no longer have currency. How awful!

it would be awful, but frankly i think you're being a little alarmist. the
death of novels & poems has been predicted but it is doubtful it will happen
(for one thing, if would-be video artists don't know the written word, how
would they be able to read the instructions? ;-) again tbh, i can foresee
worse than the disappearance of poems (which i generally consider to be one
of the worst forms of self-indulgence ;-) but even so, poets just keep
pumping them out! certainly the nature of performance and storytelling
changes (bards are a rare thing these days) but generally what we've always
had & presumably will continue to have are just different ways of people
telling their stories to others. the novel is nowhere near dead - there have
never been as many works of fiction (or for that matter, non-fiction)
available to so many people at once. mass literacy has brought that about &
people do value their literacy. i'd say the novel replaced bards & gossips &
"wise men" of old, video is akin to watching a play or a dance (although we
still have plays & dance performances - & again, more than ever).

Yep! I hear what you're saying and respectfully keep my own counsel. :-)
D'you happen to like classical ballet? I think poetry is very like
ballet: it's stylised and has boundaries and rules, that's all. Not
everyone can write a poem; not everyone can perform a great ballet, but
they do have standards of excellence and neither is everyone's cup of tea...

Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon
and Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein,
an East German group.

lastly, not all of the "great" poets & writers really stand up these days
anyway. sometimes, things just lose currency. there's always a hardcore of
nerds who care about Brilliant Writer X, but not everything ages well.
shrug. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
came later.

Hmmm... I think I can see your point. I have to say, though, that
'great' writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky etc etc are
often an acquired taste and come with age. I only managed to read 'The
Lord of the Rings' (generally regarded as one of the great modern
classics from the Days of My Youth) by putting it in the dunny and
reading it in short bursts. I can't *stand* Tolkein's inflated,
self-conscious writing style.

the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
published in modern, more discerning times.

LOL! I've often wondered what was the drug of choice among those ancient
prophets. I think the Bible stands alone, though, since it's pretty much
unique in its origins, history and purpose. It takes a certain kind of
mind to want to wade through much of its allegory and ancient forms.

gasp! i've forgotten my capitals for this one!!

thinking about gum trees, many of them have 5-10 "common" names. the place
of latin names (for the common folk) is to make clear exactly which one
you're referring to. also, lots of plants are _only_ known by their latin
names. i think people who are sensitive about others using latin names have
a generalised anxiety you can't address or change for them :-)
kylie


Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
changed? Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean
'Corymbia', don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been
revamped and 'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come
under 'Corymbia'. I think there's more info on the SGAP website.

Ack! Why do they do these things to us?

Again, thanks for a really enjoyable post and interesting point of view! :-D

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
Ooo! What a great post! Thanks for the considered reply! :-)

0tterbot wrote:

1: we have many "education systems", not just one :-)

Yep! I'm in touch with other educators in every state and most share my
paranoia. (That is, 'most of those whom I know', not 'most of those who
exist'.)

Well then, i probably think you're _all_ worrying a bit over nothing :-)

2: it would certainly feature in some classes, but not others. the list
of available literature for schools is massive - from within that,
teachers decide.

Yep! My point is that classic Oz literature from Banjo Paterson, Henry
Kendall, CJ Dennis and so on ought to have a permanent place in schools
because they reflect a period of our development.

I see. I don't necessarily disagree. (I LOVE "Mulga Bill's Bicycle"!!!!) but
really, I don't think it's the sort of thing you could spend an entire term
on, or anything like that. Certainly those things have historical
significance. Then again, so do other things. How does one choose?

One thing that drives me a bit bats is everyone dumping on schools & school
kids re the curriculum. I asked a recent year-12 what he studied in English
for his HSC & was promptly gobsmacked. They did 10-odd different things
which seemed to include a spot of comparitive media studies thrown in. I
didn't do my HSC (dropped out) but at my school you'd do one "biggie" a
term. One Shakespeare play, one English classic of some sort (sadly, Jane
Austen [blurghhh!] seems to have featured heavily), and something "modern"
(perhaps from the 1960s or 70s) & then you must have had to revise, or
something - truthfully, I only remember doing one thing in year 11 but we
must have filled up the time somehow with soemthing boring I've forgotten
about. Same with my kids' schedule for primary school - they cover so much
in the curriculum while at the same age I did virtually nothing in the same
time frame! So when people are saying kids "should" be doing this or that, I
would ask "what the hell do you want them to drop so they can fit it in?!"

We
oughtn't to pretend our history didn't happen!

I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men. :-)

Fair enough! Not gonna argue there! What *is* your favourite book, just
out of interest? I love finding a good read through other people! :-)

It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing g

why would anyone make a machine to do that if _nobody_ knows (nor
presumably, cares)? that doesn't make sense.

Well, I've been in the computer industry on and off for - geez! - nearly
thirty years now! I've watched 'WYSIWYG', 'multi media', 'multi tasking'
and 'the information superhighway' arrive and take hold. I've seen storage
media change from 12" floppies that held 4k of info give way to terabytes
of storage. I've learned that technology does have massive power to change
what we do and how we do it. Kids today don't need to spell, for example.
The language they use to communicate on their phones and MSN bears little
resemblance to accepted English, yet they understand each other perfectly.
It's utilitarian, isn't it?

But this is partly what set this thread going - the dude who wanted cuttings
didn't write "properly" for a newsgroup - he wrote sms-style. He didn't
write it "wrong" so much as he had the _context_ all wrong. I rarely send
sms because I just plain cannot be bothered - it's just so tedious to me, so
when I do, I abbreviate as much as I can. (Almost everyone does.) BUT - if a
person doesn't know a word, I can't see that it can be abbreviated sensibly
either. Everyone who uses sms has already had a good (hopefully) grounding
in Proper English (which changes with time anyway) beforehand, otherwise the
whole system falls down. People really do go on & on about this & I'm not
saying you're being silly or anything, but I cannot see the risk of people
"no longer" using good spelling or whatnot. In Australia, literacy is very
near total - unlike, say, 50 years ago when it simply was not. Literate
people play with language, deliberately. What you see with sms is really
just a by-product of mass literacy, in my view. It doesn't undermine or
particularly effect the standard English that everyone has to use in daily
life if they want to participate in society. IIUC, Braille (novels, say) for
good (older) readers is very, very abbreviated, otherwise things would
simply take too long to get through (the hand being so much slower than the
eye), but until you know what is being abbreviated, you need to learn full
spellings in order to understand the abbreviations. If I've got that wrong
about Braille I am happy to be corrected, but that's a good example, isn't
it?

Voice
recognition has taken a long time to come along in a useful form, but it's
nearly there. I can see a day when it'll no longer be necessary to write
what you want to say. Your computer will 'hear' your voice through
supermicrophones and transmit your info to someone else who will simply
listen to it and save it in audio format. Where's the need to write
anything? Just a suspicion I have...

Sounds a bit like that wacky modern invention, the "telephone". g!

Gawd, I sound like a technophile when really I'm a bit of a Luddite - but I
do strongly think people get worried about literacy somewhat unduly -
instead of enjoying the effects of mass literacy, they see it as further
excuse to get into a panic about the country going down the toilet.

Yep! I hear what you're saying and respectfully keep my own counsel. :-)
D'you happen to like classical ballet? I think poetry is very like ballet:
it's stylised and has boundaries and rules, that's all. Not everyone can
write a poem; not everyone can perform a great ballet, but they do have
standards of excellence and neither is everyone's cup of tea...

I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to see
it. I approve of its existence :-) And I _did_ very much approve of poetry
when I was younger, but I just got over it. It's not that I think poetry is
bad or irrelevent - it's more part of a general gripe of mine about people
faffing about with the "arts" as though it makes them a better person, when
in truth the vast majority of them simply don't have enough talent or
relevence & are just being utterly self-indulgent.

Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon and
Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein, an
East German group.

Ja, Rammstein. Cookie Monster got a new job & that's what it was G! sorry
;-) I think you bring up an interesting thing, though - poetry set to music
(i.e. a "song") will always have a far greater audience. I think there's a
human need for song but no corresponding great need for poetry. Or so it
seems to me.

Hmmm... I think I can see your point. I have to say, though, that 'great'
writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky etc etc are often an
acquired taste and come with age. I only managed to read 'The Lord of the
Rings' (generally regarded as one of the great modern classics from the
Days of My Youth) by putting it in the dunny and reading it in short
bursts. I can't *stand* Tolkein's inflated, self-conscious writing style.

Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-) I
wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is hard
to pick. The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile.
Dostoyevsky - actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on.
I'm sure we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)

LOL! I've often wondered what was the drug of choice among those ancient
prophets. I think the Bible stands alone, though, since it's pretty much
unique in its origins, history and purpose. It takes a certain kind of
mind to want to wade through much of its allegory and ancient forms.

I find it pretty interesting & i'm NOT a believer. & yes, mostly it's
interesting due to historical significance - not for its own sake. So that's
probably a different category again. But do I think it could be published
now? No - just not good enough. I'm pretty sure the Revelation is a record
of either a drug experience or a psychiatric event :-)

The bible doesn't stand alone so much as it stands with other religious
"classics". They're all a bit mental, but as you say, it's just a different
case.

Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
changed?

Yes. But fortunately, having known almost nothing about any of them under
the old classifications, the new ones therefore don't bother me!! :-D

Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean 'Corymbia',
don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been revamped and
'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come under 'Corymbia'.
I think there's more info on the SGAP website.

Ack! Why do they do these things to us?

Again, thanks for a really enjoyable post and interesting point of view!
:-D

Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!
Kylie

0tterbot wrote:

snip

One thing that drives me a bit bats is everyone dumping on schools & school
kids re the curriculum.

Oh, I *so* agree with you! Kids today have to assimilate everything we
did and then some. We never had computers to contend with, or media
studies or any of the trade courses they offer today. I have a young
friend who just sat for Engineering in his HSC! Mind you I have great
respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything
you throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone
seems to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!

I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men. :-)

Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
confines of the towns. AFAICT, they had virtually no contact with
Aborigines and were merchants and farmers and glovers. I wish someone
*would* compile a local aboriginal history for those of us who'd love to
read it! I've rummaged through as much as I could at our local reference
library and there's sadly not much available. I think it had a lot to do
with the fact that Aborigines didn't write their history down and white
folks never thought to do it for them. There are a few tragic, tragic
stories about atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here
(Lake Macquarie area), but precious little about the tribes or how and
where they lived.

It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing g

Not me! I love it too! Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths? I'm in the middle
of re-reading all of those (no wonder the eyesight's so rotten...)

But this is partly what set this thread going - the dude who wanted cuttings
didn't write "properly" for a newsgroup - he wrote sms-style.

Oh, certainly. Except, he failed to make consideration for his audience.
He wasn't writing to his SMSing peers, he was writing to people who use
regular grammar and syntax *and who have no background in fonespeke*. If
you have something to say or want to ask for something, then it helps to
use a language your audience will be able to compute.

Sounds a bit like that wacky modern invention, the "telephone". g!

Exactly. So portable, so efficient, so everywhere (can I say
'ubiquitous'?) The technology on computer is just a millifirkin away
from being ported over to phones and then away we'll go! Once everyone
has a phone-computer in his pocket, the skills that were once so vital
(reading, writing, 'rithmetic) won't have currency any longer. And hey!
I'm an old-fashioned teacher and it horrifies me that this could happen.
I'd love to stop it if I could, but change has to go with technology and
that's really a good thing, when you think about it.

Gawd, I sound like a technophile when really I'm a bit of a Luddite - but I
do strongly think people get worried about literacy somewhat unduly -
instead of enjoying the effects of mass literacy, they see it as further
excuse to get into a panic about the country going down the toilet.

Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly,
history becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life
into context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history
with the same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)

And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!

I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to see
it. I approve of its existence :-)

ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit! I've loved
the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.
Snif. (We-ee-ell... if you count the appallingly horrible annual
concerts my daughter was involved in... I gotta tell you, there is *no*
pleasure to be had in watching Other People's Daughters romping around a
stage and obscuring your own!)

And I _did_ very much approve of poetry
when I was younger, but I just got over it. It's not that I think poetry is
bad or irrelevent - it's more part of a general gripe of mine about people
faffing about with the "arts" as though it makes them a better person, when
in truth the vast majority of them simply don't have enough talent or
relevence & are just being utterly self-indulgent.

Cynical! Read the words of Till Lindemann (google Rammstein: there's a
really good translaton site of theirs out there somewhere). And google
the song 'Democracy' by Leonard Cohen. It's pretty long, but I do love
the way he puts things (if you've just read 'Amerika' by Rammstein, it's
even more poignant).

Among my favourite poets: Paul Simon (seventies writer of songs: Simon and
Garfunkel) stands far out there! Also, Till Lindemann of Rammstein, an
East German group.

Ja, Rammstein. Cookie Monster got a new job & that's what it was G! sorry
;-) I think you bring up an interesting thing, though - poetry set to music
(i.e. a "song") will always have a far greater audience. I think there's a
human need for song but no corresponding great need for poetry. Or so it
seems to me.

Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;-

I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery
to me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a
voice that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a
poetry junkie for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and
music have very fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such
as it is) and each of us can interpret the message in his own way.
That's the point of this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a
poem or look at a painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to
know the history it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach
and Rachmaninoff? Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with
Banjo Paterson and P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).

Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-) I
wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is hard
to pick.

ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;-

The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile.
Dostoyevsky - actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on.
I'm sure we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)

Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old
enough to read Dickens...? :-D

Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!

Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
Mind you I have great
respect for the Mind of the Kid and believe they can suck up anything you
throw at them (within reason, of course). But as you say, everyone seems
to want schools to be all things and it's just not possible!

yes, i'm sure they're all right for now, but we have to draw the line
somewhere!! (and we need to stop it with the stupid criticism, too). it used
to particularly outrage me when ignoramuses such as the ex-p.m. were having
a go. boring and tiny-minded ideologues should stay out of public debates
until they show they have a passing acquaintence with what they're talking
about!!!


I'm not sure that they do. But equally, we can't know our history through
literature particularly well anyway - it was all written by white men.
:-)

Much as I might love for it to be otherwise, my history was white
anglo-celtic. My ancestors came to N'cle in 1835 and lived within the
confines of the towns. (snip) There are a few tragic, tragic stories about
atrocities that happened a bit farther away from here (Lake Macquarie
area), but precious little about the tribes or how and where they lived.

but i didn't ONLY mean aboriginal history, but non-white-male histories in
general - women, children, other immigrants, etc etc. people are now very
interested in non-white-male histories, but there aren't many to be had
because nobody thought these people were important or interesting. so as a
historical device, white mens' stories are of interest, but they also
highlight other stuff we can't know. all that man-from-snowy-river stuff is
considered "important" here in australia, but it leaves the lives of 99% of
people unrecorded entirely, iyswim! that's all. so therefore, i don't think
it's worth getting too sentimental about, really.

It's "Wuthering Heights". Now shaddup & stop laughing g

Not me! I love it too!

all right then - friends for life! ;-)

Just listened to the Talking Book of it a few
weeks ago (bloody rotten eyesight!) Have you ever looked at 'Hornblower'
or 'Master and Commander' or any of the Wilbur Smiths?

ah, no :-)

Nah! Most people (like me) who whinge are getting old enough to loathe
change for its own sake. At a certain point in life (probably around
middle-age), you start looking back as well as forward. Suddenly, history
becomes more important to you as you begin to put your own life into
context. Next, you try to assist younger folk to see the history with the
same scale-free eyes that you do (my poor, *poor* kids!)

And do be fair! People who have lived a long time *do* know more in many
areas than those who haven't. Wisdom! It's a wonderful thing! If you can
acquire that along the way, then you're rich indeed!

i'm not having a go at old people!!!! i'm not sure why you thought that.

i do think you're right in that many have a tendency to whinge pointlessly
just because things are different with time (but it's always been that way).
er, if that's what you were saying, that is ;-) i rather hope that when i'm
old i'll be able to see the good as clearly. there WERE no "good old days",
there just never have been! every time has it's good & bad, life's just like
that. _that_ is what wisdom is - the ability to see clearly & use & share
knowledge (without feeling the urge to moan on about everyone else who is
younger than oneself ;-)

apparently, it's a necessary phase of life to be looking back in one's
dotage (in the same way the very young only look forward) but really, some
people take that much too far & it just becomes whingeing. i find camera
phones unspeakably loathesome in every way, but badgering everyone i know
with that opinion would not get me very far, would it? :-)

i was born in 1970, which means ALL MY LIFE i've had to sit by rolling my
eyes while people blah on about how fabulous the 1960s were & how anyone
younger than that has missed everything worthwhile and rah rah rah. god,
it's so boring!!!!!! but mostly, it's demonstrably untrue - you can't make
that claim of any era & it's foolish to even get started. if a person wants
to be a bore, they should at least aim to be a bore with a balanced
viewpoint ;-)

I rather do like classical ballet although not to the point of going to
see it. I approve of its existence :-)

ROTFL! I don't go because I couldn't afford to in a pink fit!

well, exactly!

I've loved
the ballet all my life and have never ever seen one performed live.

i've only ever seen one, as a kid (a local production, so it probably wasn't
even all that good, although i thought it was wonderful!). still, it was a
very special experience! i feel a bit mortified that we can't take the kids
to more erm "high culture" stuff, but it's beyond the price range of almost
everyone, isn't it?

Please don't slag Rammstein! I'm a groupie! ;-

and i think it's nice that there is something out there for everyone!

I think poetry appreciation is a learned art. An elderly schoolmistress
who was a friend of our family had me reciting Tennyson when I was only
four. She pointed out things like alliteration, onomatopeia and imagery to
me (in a very basic way, of course). And she read poetry to me in a voice
that made it all clear. This set me up for life! I've been a poetry junkie
for fifty years now and for me, poetry, art, dance and music have very
fuzzy lines between them. They capture our culture (such as it is) and
each of us can interpret the message in his own way. That's the point of
this whole discussion, though. You don't just read a poem or look at a
painting or hear a symphony in isolation. You need to know the history
it's depicting. I mean, how can you compare, say, Bach and Rachmaninoff?
Different! Ages apart! But both magnificent! Same with Banjo Paterson and
P!nk (another modern poet I'm rather fond of).

as they say - comparisons are odious. (not to mention the fact that many
things are incomparable.) do you read the smh? if not, the other week,
grown-up adults were getting all bothered in trying to compare "high"
culture with "pop" culture & everyone convinced they alone are right
(really, beatles fans have a great deal to answer for when it comes to
de-braining cultural debates!! ... and yes, i think the beatles are
dreadfully overrated, too g.) anyway, simon tedeschi who is a lovely young
man who is very "high culture" without feeling that that makes him superior
in any way, made the best contribution on that score (which in effect was,
"these things are too different to try to compare, so talk yourselves
down!")

Um, I'd just say that Tolkein just isn't that good & be done with it. :-)
I wouldn't consider it a modern classic whatsoever. LOTR does have mass
nerd-appeal, though. Some things just do - it defies explanation & is
hard to pick.

ROTFLMAO!!! I used to say that. However, better minds than mine seem to
think it's the equivalent of the Highly Boble - if so many others get so
much out of it, then who am I to say it's $#!+? ;-

well you can if you like, it's a free society g i don't think mass appeal
means something is "good", though. the sales figures that the top-selling
mills & boon (etc) titles get is enough to make literary novelists howl at
the moon, but again there wouldn't be any "comparison".

i did like "the hobbit" though. perhaps lotr is just a plot idea stretched
too far? i think the author, and those readers, like the aspects of a
fully-formed imaginary world with maps & languages etc etc a bit more than
they like the literary aspects? (just guessing).

The others? Shakespeare - excellent. Dickens - infantile. Dostoyevsky -
actually pretty readable if that's your thing. We could go on. I'm sure
we agree that there's something for everyone out there! :-)

Of course! Mind you, I watched 'Bleak House' on the ABC and then, fired
with enthusiasm, read the book. It was great! Maybe I'm nearly old enough
to read Dickens...? :-D

maybe - but wasn't he a best-seller in his own time? there's no reason that
one should now have to be older to like it, necessarily.


Well, you too!! We are very on-topic here, as a rule!!

Well... it started out with Oz poetry and it does say 'aus' in the ng
title. I've put OT in the header, though. :-D

nature is a poem, the magnificence of which words couldn't begin to
replicate!!!!!!!
:-D
on that pompous note....
(no, i really do believe that, but it's not a big deal, & i doubt anyone
else cares :-)

kylie

In article ,
Trish Brown wrote:

Yeah, but did you know the taxonomy of gum trees has recently been
changed? Just to upset all our applecarts, I s'pose. In fact, a friend
who is a botanist in Texas broke the news to me. I was talking to her
about Angophoras and she gently corrected me, saying 'You mean
'Corymbia', don't you?' Apparently, the whole family Myrtaceae has been
revamped and 'fixed' so that many former Eucalyptus species now come
under 'Corymbia'. I think there's more info on the SGAP website.

Ack! Why do they do these things to us?

Because our botany hasn't been studied for very long, we're still working
things out. Most eucalypts are still eucalypts.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

shrug. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
came later. the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
published in modern, more discerning times.

The two books you're complaining about are translations, and a lot depends on
the skill of the translator. AFAIK most modern translations of the Bible have
not set beauty as an objective, unlike the translators of the KJV. Most set a
great deal of store on accuracy of translation (resulting in an
academically-useful but wooden text) or accuracy of vibe (where a lot of the
'foreign' bits are made less foreign -- my favourite example is a Yank
translation where King Saul "went to the bathroom" in the cave!) No doubt
translators of the Iliad have the same problems.

Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good. Most hip
new poetry is too hip to last imo.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-A0DDC4.23363817012008@news...

The two books you're complaining about

was i complaining? i thought i was just airing my views! sorry about that.

are translations, and a lot depends on
the skill of the translator.

excellent point.

AFAIK most modern translations of the Bible have
not set beauty as an objective, unlike the translators of the KJV.

i like the kjv. there IS no other bible!!!

Most set a
great deal of store on accuracy of translation (resulting in an
academically-useful but wooden text) or accuracy of vibe (where a lot of
the
'foreign' bits are made less foreign -- my favourite example is a Yank
translation where King Saul "went to the bathroom" in the cave!)

oh noooooooooooooooooooo...!
i don't suppose you happen to know what they did about onan "spilling his
seed upon the ground" **. (one shudders to think!)

No doubt
translators of the Iliad have the same problems.

Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good. Most
hip
new poetry is too hip to last imo.

probably, in the 16th century (etc) there was a lot of hip poetry that
didn't last :-)
kylie
** i must have been about 25 before i even worked out what that _meant_!!

"Chookie" wrote in message

Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good.

Me too. Betjeman especially.

"0tterbot" wrote in message news:WXkij.2641

P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals bg!

Well done Otter! Now you just have to use them, ya slack tart! :-))

BTW, could you e-mail me please? moura at bluemaxx and add the country code
at the end.

Fran

Kylie

Ooops. Sorry Kylie, forgot to mention to put the 'dot com' in before the
country code!

Fran

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"0tterbot" wrote in message news:WXkij.2641

P.S. There you go, Farmie!! I told you I know capitals bg!

Well done Otter! Now you just have to use them, ya slack tart! :-))

that's Slack Tart to you!!!!!!

BTW, could you e-mail me please? moura at bluemaxx and add the country
code at the end.

ok! i think i have seen your gate. i can't remember where it is, though.
kylie


Fran